56 comments:

Steyn is right. We should be more worried about him being a lone wolf, because we don't know how to fight against lone wolves.Many more of these, and some people may think that Islam is prone to producing lone wolves.

If he was formally part of an org, then you can fight against that org. But if there isn't an organization to fight against?

Two things: (1) Mohammed is an unfortunate first name. It's natural for people to make associations.

(2) From the NYT piece: It was during one of his stints in prison that Mr. Merah, a French citizen of Algerian descent, became politicized and later traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where, he says, he received training.

I must say, I hesitated to link to Steyn, because I am uncomfortable with any hint of Islamophobia, but it's an important contrast to what the NYT is saying, which is that these are mentally unstable loners.

Althouse said...because I am uncomfortable with any hint of Islamophobia,

beta below illustrates the point at the CSM. These shooting stories in the MSM always end up not with the Jews cowering in the temple, but rather how terrible it is now that Muslims are going to be picked on and called names as though getting beheaded isn't a bit worse.

It's not Islamophobia to identify that Salafi Muslims exist, especially in prisons where they have not much else to do but study and obsess over the hateful passages of the Qur'an. It's not Islamophobia to note that Merah went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and was probably supported financially by someone since he had no work history to speak of. It's not Islamophobia to note that many Muslims learn their hatred for Jews while they are becoming devout Muslims.

These are facts. Ignore reality at your own peril.

Does that condemn all Muslims, no, of course not. But Muslims and we all need to deal with the facts as they exist, not as we would wish them to be.

Ann Althouse said...I must say, I hesitated to link to Steyn, because I am uncomfortable with any hint of Islamophobia, but it's an important contrast to what the NYT is saying, which is that these are mentally unstable loners.

Steyn must be anathema to some of your readers like Sullivan is to others.

Ann too many people are so fearful of offending others that they close their eyes and minds to terrible things. It's a fact that there is a continual stream of people who are prepared to kill others in the name of Islam. It's a fact that they are inspired and driven by Islam, they all state as much in their words and deeds. Yet most of the media and politicians refuse to acknowledge this and prefer to confect their own reasons for the violence rather than accept what the perpetrators say. I can see that you are aware and troubled by this and yet at the same time you are reluctant to publicly accept the truth in case you cause offence.

The facts are that Islam is and always has been a proselytizing which authorises the use of violence to convert others. Islam requires a reformation of sorts and an acceptance that the Koran is not the literal word of god but is open to interpretation. I don't know if a reformation can be caused by outside forces or if it has to come from within but if it doesn't occur then this deadly problem will be with us for a long time to come.

There following are is a number of misconceptions about the Salafi Da'wah:Calling as-Salafiyyah a 'movement' or 'movements.' It should be clear to all that the Salafi Da'wah is Islam, no more and no less. It is the True Islam with all its teachings and implications. Anyone who talks about it as an outsider might as well talk about Islam as an outsider! It is the teachings of the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah in the light of practices and understanding of as-Salaf: A 'movement' is meant to indicate something temporal or reactionary, whereas the Salafi Da'wah is the only true and constant and blessed Da wah of the prophets." source: http://www.qss.org/articles/salafi/text.html

Is it Islamophobia if you reproduce a direct quote? If it is, and we can not discuss the truth, we've got a real problem.

Islam requires a reformation of sorts and an acceptance that the Koran is not the literal word of god but is open to interpretation.

To use the word "Reformation" for such an undertaking is too mild. "Cataclysm that Islam might not survive" is the more appropriate phrase.

For the Salafists, according to their Asharite traditions, the Koran is co-eternal with God. Each word is literally the voice of God. The Koran was revealed to Mohammed, but written by God.

It's not like Christian scripture, which is revealed by the Holy Spirit to the prophets in history. It's not heresy in Christianity to say that before Isaiah there was no book of Isaiah, nor was there a need for a book of Isaiah before Isaiah.

That's why Muslims go bazoo when the Koran is desecrated, and that's why Koranic textual criticism is something non-Muslims or soon to be excommunicated Muslims do.

With a single statement ("...I am uncomfortable..") Althouse demonstrates so much that is so terribly, terribly wrong with the "sensibilities" of the "decent"/"moderate" left--and why they are all too often suicidily naive about the true nature/teachings of Islam.

So Ann doesn't want any hint of "Islamophobia", but phobias are by definition irrational fears. What Steyn has been preaching for many years is as rational as Newton's laws of physics. Just because the fears are inconvenient in the PC world doesn't make them phobias.

My objection is to overgenerlization. Criticize the segment of Islam that deserves criticism, but don't be careless about dragging in all the millions of people who practice Islam and don't buy into terrorist ideology.

"I must say, I hesitated to link to Steyn, because I am uncomfortable with any hint of Islamophobia, but it's an important contrast to what the NYT is saying, which is that these are mentally unstable loners."

Be careful of those "hints" because they are lethal. Better to mimic the Yale University Press which omitted pictures of the Mohammed cartoons in a book about the Mohammed cartoons. That way there is no " hint" of the phobia which you display in spades by hiding fear behind sanctimony. .

Is it wrong to fear a religion that seems to spawn so many violent actors, acting in the name of that religion? I mean almost all nationalities, ethnicities and religions spawn at least some bad actors - humans are flawed and evil is pretty widely distributed, but with Islam it seems like so many of these bad actors seem to come directly or indirectly from the religious training institutions and the mosques. And there's nobody to hold responsible for twisted teachings and sermons.

I mean, if a Catholic priest or a whole church goes off the rails, you can take it to the Bishop, the Archbishop, the Cardinal and eventually the Church. The Church many not be very agile and, as we saw with the sex abuse scandals, a response can come at glacial speed, but eventually there is some accountability, whereas it seems like every mosque is a lone wolf mosque, and prominent Muslims are unable or unwilling to criticize other preachers.

So of course there will be fear - a rather reasonable fear of a dogma that seems able to inspire large numbers of men into suicidal violence, and is patently unable or unwilling to police itself.

And then to top it off, every time a massacre does happen, before the bodies are even cold, we are treated to endless bleating about "Islamaphobia", "Diversity" and not "Rushing to Judgment".

The problem is isolating which segments are which. Clearly, the vast majority of Muslims don't actively support violence, but a large proportion at least gives the impression of passively supporting it, and in many cases cheering it. Remember the celebrations around the Muslim world on 9/11. Can you imagine anyone in the West doing the same thing following Bales' murder spree? No, we're all hoping for a speedy trial and a speedier execution.

Problem is, Ann, it is Islam, the faith itself and NOT the "moderate" practitioners who are "moderate" only in the same way Cafeteria Catholics ignore most of the basic tenents of their faith, yet nevertheless still consider themselves to be "good Catholics" in order to cope with a modern, largely (increasingly) secular society. Islam the faith--in ALL its writings-- preaches unremitting violence toward ALL "non-believers" as its bedrock foundation in ways that neither Christianity nor the Jewish faith does (nor any other religion, for that matter.) It is no accident that the VAST MAJORITY of wars, internal and/or regional insurrections and acts of terrorism currently actively underway the world over involve Muslims.

That is simply not true Hagar and is one of the too all-pervasive myths about Islam. The history of Jews in Moorish Spain and elsewhere was one of extreme oppression, harsh taxation, seizure of land and Synagogues and unremitting pressures to convert.

If we look at what I'll call cultural killing in the news recently it would be 2 Americans in re: Koran burning, 17 Afghans in re: whatever, 4 Jews in re: Al Quaeda, 12 Palestinians in re: inability to kill Israelis, 1 black kid in re: being hooded inside the gates. At this rates, the nonpeaceful religion of 'good guys,' well, you all got the count.

"don't be careless about dragging in all the millions of people who practice Islam and don't buy into terrorist ideology."

Oh good grief. No, it's way past time they were all dragged into it, and told, "These are YOUR co-religionists, and this is your problem as much as it is any non-Muslims. What are YOU doing to help make this problem go away?"

'Hagar' said, "The current intense hostility between the two religions have come about since WWII."

Or perhaps earlier?

“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'”

- Former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini in his post-WWII memoirs.

Hagar -- Not exactly true, problems started with the genocide of Jewish tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad in 628. From whence we have the memorable line often shouted at anti Israel rallies: "Khaybar - Khayar ya Yahud, Jaysh Mushammad sa ya'ud!" "Jews remember Kaibar. The army of Mohammed is coming back to defeat you."

From Moses Maimonides, 12th century Jewish sage:Describing the situation of the Jews living under dhimitude (mandated 2nd class status under Islam) after 5 centuries of Muslim rule, wrote: 'No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have.' And he of course lived in what is described as the Golden Age of Muslim rule.

The situation for Jews living in the democratic west under Christianity has of course vastly improved in the last 3 centuries, according to Bernard Lewis. The situation was never as bad under the Muslims as it sometimes was under the Christians, but it also never was as good.

See Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael's House A History of Jews in Muslim Lands

Peter (re Hagar's claim): there are even earlier 20th-century examples of sudden violent pogroms against Jews in the Middle East; I know at least one is mentioned in The Closed Circle but I'll be darned if I can find it now (time to re-buy the book as a Kindle edition if one's available?)

What makes you think that Islam hasn't already had its reformation, and what we're seeing today is the result of that reformation?

And given what the west has become, from a Muslim's perspective (sexually decadent, cowardly, blasphemous), why would they want to have the type of reformation that you suggest?Do you think that Martin Luther might rethink his protests if he knew that his reformation would lead to a society where gay-marriage is the most important cause, pre-marital sex is the norm, and pornography is mainstream?Whether you think these things are wrong or not, Martin Luther thought they were, and Muslims think they are. They may very well view the liberalization of western religion as a stepping stone to this type of (in their view) depraved behavior, and would thus summarily decide to reject it.

Be careful of those "hints" because they are lethal. Better to mimic the Yale University Press which omitted pictures of the Mohammed cartoons in a book about the Mohammed cartoons. That way there is no " hint" of the phobia which you display in spades by hiding fear behind sanctimony.

Ouch.

And agree that something is off with her recently. I think she's prepping the battlespace for her decision to go with Hopey Change again.

Hi Ann"the millions of people who practice Islam and don't buy into terrorist ideology"

You're sort of there, however you never hear even the most 'moderate' Islamic groups denouncing the violence that their fellow believers engage in. The reason is that the Koran explicitly condones jihad including violent jihad, in fact it could be argued that those who use violence against non muslims are being devout. I'm sure many muslims are disturbed and torn by the violence however if they are honest with themselves and believe in the Koran being the literal word of god, they can do no other than support the violence even if if only by remaining silent about it.

I just don't understand the reluctance of the political class and the media to accept what the jihadists tell them. Why do they prefer a narrative of victimhood and poverty?

RE: concern for the Jewish victims of Mehad versus the lack of coverage about the French soldiers, two of whom were Muslims, one who was black (who may have been mistaken for a Muslim.)

Compare and contrast the coverage: adl.org vs. cair.com in covering the story. There is no coverage at all by CAIR. Do they not know that the Muslims were victims of terrorism, targeted because they were seen as being disloyal to the ummah?

Geoff"What makes you think that Islam hasn't already had its reformation, and what we're seeing today is the result of that reformation"

That may be true, I don't know. I haven't seen evidence of it. As for Luther, he didn't cause what some call the moral collapse of the west, if anything he helped create the foundations of the west. I am agnostic however I believe that the Christian faiths were what underpinned the west, as well as the separation of church and state.

Islam has none of this, Islam is the faith and Islam is the state, it can be no other way. Islamic societies may flourish in their own way however the Islamic faith is fundamentally incompatible with western society. The Koran and Hadiths forbade the migration of muslims to non Islamic societies, that's why there were very few muslims in the western world until relatively recent times. The current great migration is a deliberate push to change western societies into Islamic ones.

Jews (and Catholics) were forbidden to enter Norway until sometime in the 1840's, I think.

Speaking of Martin Gilbert, have you seen the maps in the back of his "Israel - A History"? They only go up to 1955, but I do not think the trend has lessened and certainly has not been reversed.

Why have the Arabic speaking countries been nearly emptied of their longstanding Jewish populations? The Jewish colony in Yemen went back to the time of the prophets, before there even was a Christian faith, much less Islam.

In the Mediterranean, and probably elsewhere, the Jews performed a useful and valued function, since they could travel relatively freely between the Moslem and Christian states and serve as middlemen, despite all the official posturing to the contrary.

Why is it that the fanatics now seem to have taken over?

Do you think it is helpful to encourage them, or would it be better to work at marginalizing the nutcases trying to drive Islam back into the Dark Ages?

Do you think it is helpful to encourage them, or would it be better to work at marginalizing the nutcases trying to drive Islam back into the Dark Ages?

I'd love to see some evidence that Islam ever emerged from the Dark Ages in the the first place. When the vast majority of Muslims are complacent or, by their silence, supportive of their more radical brethren, they become complicit in the actions of their brethren. Simple as that.

don't be careless about dragging in all the millions of people who practice Islam and don't buy into terrorist ideology

Shouldn't you extend the same courtesy to political movements? How often do you tolerate someone complaining about the Nazis, without insisting that only those Nazis who endorsed violent imperialism, genocide &c were the problem, but the guys who signed on for the health care platform and the sharp uniforms were probably ok?

Notice that these men, always men, never have success with women? And their parents never have a good marriage, if they are married at all?

Let go of the Islamic angle- this type of man is the same no matter what nonsense he supposedly believes. The ideology is simply an excuse for what he wants to do anyway- kill to give his life meaning, because he fails at everything else.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all draw on doubtful interpretations of murky passages in the Old Testament.

Thus the Jews also have their super-duper Ultra Orthodox Jews, one rabbi of which not so long ago declared that male IDF soldiers should commit suicide rather than suffer themselves to hear their female fellow soldiers sing.And there were the Kahane followers who tried to blow up a Moslem girls' school, and of course, there were Ariel Sharon's "youthful indiscretions," etc., a.s.o.

I do not remember hearing or reading much condemnation of this sort of thing from "the Jews."

So I take it you also feel that Judaism also still have not emerged from the Dark Ages, and all Jews are likewise to be condemned?